4 ms·

Does Firefox plan to use the same style of forced updates that Chrome does? As a web developer I am very grateful that Chrome is not only updated regularly but

by Pheter 15y ago

Does Firefox plan to use the same style of forced updates that Chrome does? As a web developer I am very grateful that Chrome is not only updated regularly but that these updates are forced on the end user. IE10 could be the best browser ever, but unfortunately there will still be people using IE7.

richbradshaw 15y ago
It already does I believe, or at least, they are hard to not accept.
smspence 15y ago
I believe automatic, silent updates are coming in Firefox 10.
- eiji 15y ago
  I don't see silent updates in FF10 yet. True silent ones are only possible if you move the install into the Roaming area, otherwise win7 with resonable security settings will ask for confirmation. From what I know, IT-departments don't like that.
  - joelhaasnoot 15y ago
    IT departments need to stop complaining and get their act together. That, and enterprise software firms should stop charging an arm and a leg for updates, and stop making software that will only run in IE (6). If you buy that software, shout at your boss, not at Firefox or Chrome.
  - nl 15y ago
    From what I know, IT-departments don't like that. It's important to note that, yes, it is true that some IT department are reactionary and dislike the new release process, BUT that doesn't mean that are right. There are plenty of analogous automatic update systems which are used every day in IT departments. Virus checkers are the canonical example, but increasingly SAAS applications are the same. Many IT departments are stuck in a 1999 mode of trying to control the exact version of every software they run. Fortunately businesses are wising up - firstly IT tried to tell them they couldn't use iPhone because they "weren't approved". That worked until the CEO demanded one. Now some try and say rapid browser versioning and automatic releases are bad. They'll get over that, too, or otherwise they'll be ignored. (And don't bring up the example of the IE6 websites that must use IE6 forever more. That's a problem to solve, not an excuse for keeping an entire enterprise locked to outdated technology.)
    - eitally 15y ago
      You're just wrong. There are several very good reasons why the 1999 mode is both useful and important, at least for the time being (and the next several years). Here is a brief list: - Cross-testing. My team is responsible for roughly 150 enterprise apps of varying scale, platform, age, and quality, ranging from a few disgusting classic ASP apps to monstrosities we pay nearly $1m/yr in licensing fees for. It is neither feasible nor the best use of people's time to keep up with 12wk release cycles. - Security. There are good reasons why not to allow local admin privileges for most users. Chrome is the first browser we've deployed that we've allowed auto-update to remain enabled, and if it didn't provide silent updates that didn't break extensions AND install in user space, we'd never have been able to do that. - Antivirus. I'd have thought you'd know this based on the verbiage in your comment, but apparently not. Enterprise AV doesn't work like consumer AV. An orchestrating server software is installed, at which configurations are defined and from which rule sets are distributed to clients. - Big ERP. As an example, Oracle ERP isn't compatible with every version of Java, and god help you if your users are running Linux and get confused between the official JRE and independent distributions like OpenJDK & Iced Tea. If your apps team has built extensions/interfaces to the ERP that also rely on Java, it's entirely possible or likely that they're dependent on a specific version & patch number, too. I could go on for hours. I don't think anyone -- at least none of my peers or colleagues -- would say rapid browser versioning & automatic releases are bad. Not being able to manage them can be risky. We have recently standardized on Chrome, but have deployed Firefox 8 as a fallback just in case, and our Windows users have IE8 (or 9, in the case of the few running Win7). For both Firefox & Chrome we included IETab in the MSI we distributed, customized with rules based on app compatibility. We also distributed a custom PAC file with proxy rules. Coincidentally, most of the web developers -- even if they prefer Chrome for browsing -- still prefer Firefox for dev & testing due to the superiority of Firebug & a few other add-ons.
      - true_religion 15y ago
        I've always wondered----why can't you just install two browsers? The old IE6 browser that can run your ancient intranet apps, and the new Chrome that can run the new SaaS apps. The new one auto-updates, and the old one doesn't. Clearly IT departments are capable of supporting multiple programs since that's what they do when someone purchases native software instead of a ASP app.
  - AndrewDucker 15y ago
    From my understanding there will be a single one-off UAC popup which will allow a service to be installed with higher rights - that service will then carry out installations from that point on, and will be able to do so silently, as it will have the rights to do so.
    - gcp 15y ago
      Why is there still a need to deal with UAC? Why does it need admin rights in the first place? Sounds entirely avoidable (see: Chrome).
      - AndrewDucker 15y ago
        Chrome avoids it by installing into the User's own folder. Firefox is installed in Program Files, which requires user authorisation. Arguably, this is the correct place to install, as it means that the application is usable by anyone on the PC, rather than having to be installed for each user individually. You can find more information here: http://www.brianbondy.com/blog/id/125/ http://www.brianbondy.com/blog/id/125/
      - zobzu 15y ago
        Chrome does a non-standard install and also can be self modified which isn't secure. Chrome could be replaced by a keylogger+chrome by anything running on the system. That's why admin privileges are required for accessing Program Files to begin with. Using a separate updater process is actually the clean way to go, on Windows.
AndrewDucker 15y ago
It already does automatic updates, and work is progressing to make them silent (like Chrome's).
ComputerGuru 15y ago
It does, but it's nowhere near as smooth, and I'm not talking about dialogs and user intervention. Whereas Chrome has a stable extension API, Firefox really breaks at least one very popular plugin withe each "release." So then you get nasty warnings about incompatible plugin versions and whether or not you want to look up a new version of the plugin. Whereas Chrome a) doesn't break plugin APIs very often, even in alpha and beta channels and b) automatically updates plugins anyway.
- icebraining 15y ago
  Firefox also upgrades plugins automatically, provided they pass a bunch of automated tests. Unfortunately, it seems many don't. The openness of their API is certainly a two edge sword; in one way, it lets developers dig deep in the browser's internals, which means addons can be immensely more powerful than on Chrome; on the other hand, it means they have a dependency on those same internal APIs. They've launched the Jetpack SDK as a stable API for addons that doesn't require browser restarts to install them, but almost no one uses it:|
  - steve-howard 15y ago
    I wonder if there's anything other than momentum holding Jetpack back. I would be interested in trying to get some add-ons ported just for fun. I do agree that the add-ons in Firefox are way more powerful; I like that Adblock on FF can block ads before they're even retrieved (leaving my Hulu experience punctuated by silence rather than noise).
- masklinn 15y ago
  > Whereas Chrome has a stable extension API, Firefox really breaks at least one very popular plugin withe each "release." It's not really the API which breaks, it's the versioning.
  - gcp 15y ago
    Doesn't matter, the end-user result is still the same: the browser breaks on every upgrade. It's beyond inexcusable that this is still not fixed, and I'm sure its part of the reason the userbase declined further.

by Pheter 15y ago

richbradshaw 15y ago

It already does I believe, or at least, they are hard to not accept.

smspence 15y ago

I believe automatic, silent updates are coming in Firefox 10.

eiji 15y ago
I don't see silent updates in FF10 yet. True silent ones are only possible if you move the install into the Roaming area, otherwise win7 with resonable security settings will ask for confirmation. From what I know, IT-departments don't like that.
- joelhaasnoot 15y ago
  IT departments need to stop complaining and get their act together. That, and enterprise software firms should stop charging an arm and a leg for updates, and stop making software that will only run in IE (6). If you buy that software, shout at your boss, not at Firefox or Chrome.
- nl 15y ago
  From what I know, IT-departments don't like that. It's important to note that, yes, it is true that some IT department are reactionary and dislike the new release process, BUT that doesn't mean that are right. There are plenty of analogous automatic update systems which are used every day in IT departments. Virus checkers are the canonical example, but increasingly SAAS applications are the same. Many IT departments are stuck in a 1999 mode of trying to control the exact version of every software they run. Fortunately businesses are wising up - firstly IT tried to tell them they couldn't use iPhone because they "weren't approved". That worked until the CEO demanded one. Now some try and say rapid browser versioning and automatic releases are bad. They'll get over that, too, or otherwise they'll be ignored. (And don't bring up the example of the IE6 websites that must use IE6 forever more. That's a problem to solve, not an excuse for keeping an entire enterprise locked to outdated technology.)
  - eitally 15y ago
    You're just wrong. There are several very good reasons why the 1999 mode is both useful and important, at least for the time being (and the next several years). Here is a brief list: - Cross-testing. My team is responsible for roughly 150 enterprise apps of varying scale, platform, age, and quality, ranging from a few disgusting classic ASP apps to monstrosities we pay nearly $1m/yr in licensing fees for. It is neither feasible nor the best use of people's time to keep up with 12wk release cycles. - Security. There are good reasons why not to allow local admin privileges for most users. Chrome is the first browser we've deployed that we've allowed auto-update to remain enabled, and if it didn't provide silent updates that didn't break extensions AND install in user space, we'd never have been able to do that. - Antivirus. I'd have thought you'd know this based on the verbiage in your comment, but apparently not. Enterprise AV doesn't work like consumer AV. An orchestrating server software is installed, at which configurations are defined and from which rule sets are distributed to clients. - Big ERP. As an example, Oracle ERP isn't compatible with every version of Java, and god help you if your users are running Linux and get confused between the official JRE and independent distributions like OpenJDK & Iced Tea. If your apps team has built extensions/interfaces to the ERP that also rely on Java, it's entirely possible or likely that they're dependent on a specific version & patch number, too. I could go on for hours. I don't think anyone -- at least none of my peers or colleagues -- would say rapid browser versioning & automatic releases are bad. Not being able to manage them can be risky. We have recently standardized on Chrome, but have deployed Firefox 8 as a fallback just in case, and our Windows users have IE8 (or 9, in the case of the few running Win7). For both Firefox & Chrome we included IETab in the MSI we distributed, customized with rules based on app compatibility. We also distributed a custom PAC file with proxy rules. Coincidentally, most of the web developers -- even if they prefer Chrome for browsing -- still prefer Firefox for dev & testing due to the superiority of Firebug & a few other add-ons.
    - true_religion 15y ago
      I've always wondered----why can't you just install two browsers? The old IE6 browser that can run your ancient intranet apps, and the new Chrome that can run the new SaaS apps. The new one auto-updates, and the old one doesn't. Clearly IT departments are capable of supporting multiple programs since that's what they do when someone purchases native software instead of a ASP app.
- AndrewDucker 15y ago
  From my understanding there will be a single one-off UAC popup which will allow a service to be installed with higher rights - that service will then carry out installations from that point on, and will be able to do so silently, as it will have the rights to do so.
  - gcp 15y ago
    Why is there still a need to deal with UAC? Why does it need admin rights in the first place? Sounds entirely avoidable (see: Chrome).
    - AndrewDucker 15y ago
      Chrome avoids it by installing into the User's own folder. Firefox is installed in Program Files, which requires user authorisation. Arguably, this is the correct place to install, as it means that the application is usable by anyone on the PC, rather than having to be installed for each user individually. You can find more information here: http://www.brianbondy.com/blog/id/125/ http://www.brianbondy.com/blog/id/125/
    - zobzu 15y ago
      Chrome does a non-standard install and also can be self modified which isn't secure. Chrome could be replaced by a keylogger+chrome by anything running on the system. That's why admin privileges are required for accessing Program Files to begin with. Using a separate updater process is actually the clean way to go, on Windows.

AndrewDucker 15y ago

It already does automatic updates, and work is progressing to make them silent (like Chrome's).

ComputerGuru 15y ago

It does, but it's nowhere near as smooth, and I'm not talking about dialogs and user intervention. Whereas Chrome has a stable extension API, Firefox really breaks at least one very popular plugin withe each "release." So then you get nasty warnings about incompatible plugin versions and whether or not you want to look up a new version of the plugin. Whereas Chrome a) doesn't break plugin APIs very often, even in alpha and beta channels and b) automatically updates plugins anyway.

icebraining 15y ago
Firefox also upgrades plugins automatically, provided they pass a bunch of automated tests. Unfortunately, it seems many don't. The openness of their API is certainly a two edge sword; in one way, it lets developers dig deep in the browser's internals, which means addons can be immensely more powerful than on Chrome; on the other hand, it means they have a dependency on those same internal APIs. They've launched the Jetpack SDK as a stable API for addons that doesn't require browser restarts to install them, but almost no one uses it:|
- steve-howard 15y ago
  I wonder if there's anything other than momentum holding Jetpack back. I would be interested in trying to get some add-ons ported just for fun. I do agree that the add-ons in Firefox are way more powerful; I like that Adblock on FF can block ads before they're even retrieved (leaving my Hulu experience punctuated by silence rather than noise).
masklinn 15y ago
> Whereas Chrome has a stable extension API, Firefox really breaks at least one very popular plugin withe each "release." It's not really the API which breaks, it's the versioning.
- gcp 15y ago
  Doesn't matter, the end-user result is still the same: the browser breaks on every upgrade. It's beyond inexcusable that this is still not fixed, and I'm sure its part of the reason the userbase declined further.